Abstract

Accepting the importance of Jim Greeno’s work, not just in this volume but throughout his career, I offer this commentary from the position of a researcher who first worked “from the inside out” and who now works “from the outside in.” My identity is that of a mathematics educator with a theoretical commitment to design research. To clarify, for almost seven years I collaborated with Paul Cobb, Koeno Gravemeijer and others in the execution of classroom design experiments in which I acted as the teacher. In these settings, I was working from the inside out to first, in action, make sense of students’ understandings so that I could planfully orchestrate classroom discussions. Later, I would conduct retrospective analyses of my interactions by analyzing from the “outside” what I had previously participated in on the “inside.” In these instances, I worked to understand both the students’ and my learning through normative patterns of engagement. The theoretical lens that I adopted for most of my analyses of the classroom is that of a social constructivist with a strong emphasis on tools. I find Greeno’s levels of accounts of cognition in interaction strengthen my previous orientation by more clearly articulating levels of a progression of conceptual understanding. However, I am left wondering what the means of support are for shifts between the levels. Clearly, having a way to analyze the students’ current abilities or ways of reasoning is crucial. However, I view it as necessary but insufficient for supporting learning. It is this stance that I take in my commentary.

Keywords

Coherence Liner Stein Clarification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the teachers in the Madison School District who participate in the Vanderbilt Teacher Collaborative at Madison [http://www.vtcm.org]. The analysis reported in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant REC-0135062.

References

  1. Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2001). An approach for supporting teachers’ learning in social context. In F. -L. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 207–232). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (1998, April). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of teachers’ professional development in mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.Google Scholar
  9. Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Teaching as learning within a community of practice: Characterizing generative growth. In T. Wood, B. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy in elementary mathematics: The nature of facilitative teaching (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Kaput, J. J. (1994). The representational roles of technology in connecting mathematics with authentic experience. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strasser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.Google Scholar
  12. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems in teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. McClain, K. (2002a). A methodology of classroom teaching experiments. In S. Goodchild & L. English (Eds.), Researching mathematics classrooms: A critical examination of methodology (pp. 91–118). Westport, CT: London, Praeger.Google Scholar
  15. McClain, K. (2002b). Teacher’s and students’ understanding: The role of tools and inscriptions in supporting effective communication. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 217–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (1998). The role of imagery and discourse in supporting students’ mathematical development. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Mathematical talk and school learning: What, why, and how (pp. 56–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McClain, K., & Schmitt, P. (2004). Extending teachers’ mathematical understandings: A case from statistical data analysis. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle Schools, 9, 274–279.Google Scholar
  18. McClain, K., Zhao, Q., Visnovska, J., & Bowen, E. (2009). Understanding the role of the institutional context in the relationship between teachers and text. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. (pp. 56–69). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Meira, L. (1995). The microevolution of mathematical representations in children’s activitiy. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 269–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon, M. (1997). Developing new models of mathematics teaching. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 55–86). Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  24. Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, P. W. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. v. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 197–220). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. van Oers, B. (1996). Learning mathematics as meaningful activity. In P. Nesher, L. Steffe, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 91–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. van Oers, B. (2000). The appropriation of mathematical symbols: A psychosemiotic approach to mathematical learning. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 133–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations